tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 10, 2014 3:00am-5:01am EDT
also a time of pride because boston is strong. >> if i could? >> thank you, mr. chairman. . this is a very and poured into our area, very important going forward. our brave lawk enforcement officers that are here for the work you have done once again. forward, weoving have been working on legislation that we will share with everyone . some of the positions change so you could have someone more open and they could be shared by someone.
tong forward it's important get the laws changed so we do not have a report that just sits on the shelf is we cannot afford to have this kind of tragedy. be of our work will important. i turn back and thank the chair. >> let me close by thanking the officers. you are true heroes to me and this committee. thank you for my watertown police patch. i will wear this very pro >> next, the house debates the federal budget. then this week's prime minister's questions from the british house of commons. followed by a house hearing on the one-year anniversary of the bombings.athon the next on "washington journal," a look at the differences between the budgets released by house democrats and budget committee chairman paul ryan. our guest is congressman john
of kentucky, a member of the budget committee. representative aaron schock of illinois, a member of of the ways and means committee, will theere to talk about prospects for tax reform in congress. "washington journal" is live starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern, on c-span.ng and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> hank was interviewed and he said, i've read all the accounts actually said and it's clear to me that he had serious doubts about the integration of baseball. and he says because what will happen is, he says, and i think want, they want our fans. base.ant our fan we're outdrawing the joargs in games, we're packing them in. want our fans.
he said if you want to wholeate, you know, take teams, whole black all-star teams, into the majors. and another point, if they are really interested in increasing of their teams, they won't just maybe some day take players, because we have bumpes of players who are good enough to play in major baseball. >> satchel page, and integrating baseball, saturday night at 8:00 eastern, part of american history tv this weekend c-span 3. for 35 years, bringing public affairs events from washington, directly to you. you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences. offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. servicell as a public of private industry. we're c-span, created by the years ago,dustry 35 and brought to you as a public
service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in h.d., like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> the u.s. house is making its way towards completion of debate the 2015 budget proposal, we're joined by erik wasson of the hill. been the tone of the overall debate so far? >> well, i think you tend to see very passionate debate on lay out botheally parties' priorities, and certainly the democrats feel which cutsan budget $5 trillion and doesn't close loopholes, is wrong. republicans blast the democratic alternative, which deficits and no budget balancing anywhere in the 10-year window. so i think you're seeing some pretty passionate debate on the and that'st unfolds,
typical for every year. >> you are writing specifically about how this vote may go in the end, your article on the money blog on the hill has the on ryan, defectors rise budget. and you write about a couple of republican members who plan to vote against and conservative members. .ho are some of those >> some people will be absent, so the number is 17. and because it's a slim margin of error they really have to all sorts of people who harve.it so you've got conservatives who typically vote against leadership priorities, they are conservativesnt who don't feel they owe any debt to leaders. lastlso have people from year who voted against it because they're concerned about cuts. david mckinley from west
virginia doesn't like the ryan privatizational plan, he's going to be a no again as well. other hand you have some vulnerable members, dr. joe heck told me he'sust undecided. even at the last minute. year he voted no. concerned about personnel and their benefits. ishave chris gibson who another centrist member from new re-election who is likely to vote no. so basically at this point we're seeing 13 or so really very likely nos, and then another 7 or 8 really in play. so that leaves a lot of last minute and tomorrow for leaders to make sure that doesn't go awry. there this legal of uncertainty last year in the 2013 budget? >> i think there might be a because it's an
election year. i think there aren't that many plan.s to the ryan one of the things that was a concern was the fact that ryan decided to stick with the ryan-murray budget level for is a bipartisan deal to allow star finishing on the spending bills. and rather than to attempt to thege that or stall appropriations process, then cut deeplyrt to below that to domestic, social perhaps. but some conservatives have said that's not enough for them. notably sarah palin called it a sayingnd paul ryan was maybe she's been misguided in saying that. but that would create some tea partymong the groups to go against the budget. but it seems like most conservatives are on board, and
a lot of faith in paul ryan, if sometimes they are more dissatisfied with other house leaders. a core group that tends to be very hard for leaders to whip, that they have some otherout, and people who are facing primaries. of note this year, the georgia delegation, three members are all running against each other by chambliss senate seat, two of them, paul brown and -- no last year. just trying to shore up their conservative credentials ahead of the primary. >> you mentioned a couple times that are hard to whip in the republican whip kevin mccarthy tweeted earlier contrast between our party and theirs has never been more clear. offers growth and opportunity for all. can you tell us about the behind the scenes lobbying efforts that leaders are trying? >> well, sure, you see them working the floor the last couple days.
kret was notable to see kevin mccarthy in deep conversation with raul labrador, he's still undecided even after that conversation. pretty upsetwho is by leadership maneuver this a medicare, a way inavoid a sudden cut physician payments under .edicare this is viewed as a trick played and file,ative rank and some members are very angry about it. felt that they're going to retaliate or show their billsasure on other rather than wound ryan who is in many ways. conversation deep with kevin mccarthy yesterday. plus the other people out there the floor, the chief of eric cantor, he was in
with --versation action goinglot of on. they say that they are confident. we have the deputy majority whip telling us just a few moments that this was definitely going to pass. to come down to the wire and i think it's going to razor thin line there. >> obviously keeping a very offe eu on things on and the floor, erik wasson with the reportingcan re: his at the hill.com and also on twitter. thanks for that update. so much. >> the house will vote on the republican budget tomorrow. live coverage of the house beginnings at 9:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. now some of today's debate on budget, this hour and 10 minute portion begins with budget committee chairman paul ryan. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i yield
myself five minutes. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. mr. ryan: here we are again, mr. chairman. resuming debate we left off yesterday. let me try and give a summary of what this is all about. this is all about getting our fiscal house in order. this is all about prioritizing hardworking taxpayer dollars. this is all about doing in our generation what we need to do to make sure the next generation has a secure future, a debt-free future. so that's why we are bringing a budget to the floor and that's why we are making those difficult decision, and that's why we are advocating for these important reforms. in much of the 20th century, a lot of programs were created. a lot of laudable goals were established. but now in the 21st century, i think we have learned a thing or two about how we can better accomplish and abelieve some of
these goals such as retirement security. because the way these programs were designed nearly a generation ago, they are now going into bankruptcy in this generation. and if we allow that to happen, then we will pull out from underneath those who depend on these programs for their health and retirement security. we will renege on that social contract. more to the point, we are going to do damage to our economy if we keep this deficit and debt going on its current course. we asked the congressional budget office, take a look at the kind of deficit and deficit reduction we are proposing and tell us over the long period, over the course of this budget, what does that do for america, for our economy? and they tell us, getting your economic and fiscal house in order, reducing the deaf, and balancing the budget so you can begin paying off the debt, is good for economic growth. in fact, it will increase
economic output by 1.8 percentage points, that's a lot. what does that mean to every person in america? about $1,100 in more take-home pay, in higher income because we did our jobs here. but more importantly, what it means for the next generation is instead of sending our bills to them to work hard, to pay their taxes, to pay off our bills, then they have to start working for themselves, we are going to give them a better future, because we right now, c.b.o. tells us this much, they are going to inherit a diminished future. that's point number one. point number two is, we've got to stop spending money we don't have. he we will hear all of these arguments about the draconian cuts and the slashing and all of this. these are the same arguments we heard time and again, and when those arguments have prevailed, they have brought us to where we are today. extraordinarily high deficits.
deficits going back to $1 trillion by the end of this budget period. a debt that's about to take off. if we don't get this under control, we will not have the kind of economy that the people of this country deserve. we don't want washington to stand in the way of people's success. we want washington to play its rightful supporting role so that people can become successful. we believe in a system of natural rights and equality of opportunities so people can make the most of their lives. we don't believe in a system where government thinks they must take this commanding role within the middle of people's lives that end up bankrupting this contry. diminishing the future -- country. diminishing the future, he lowering economic growth and prosperity. big difference in approaches. we want to tackle these challenges. what i would also say is, we have an important obligation to secure this country and protect our national defense. america, like it or not, is the
superpower nation in the world. and a duty befalls upon us to take that responsibility seriously. with that responsibility also comes the ability to chart our own course in the world, to help preserve the peace, and to help pave the way for prosperity so that we can have economic opportunity, so that we can advance our views and our values and the protection of individual and human rights and democracy. these things are good for america. a strong america, a strong military helps make for a peaceful america, a prosperous america. so we need to take the needed reforms to make sure that these critical retirement programs are there, not only intact for people in the near retirement, but there for those of us who are younger when we hope to retire. we need to get our spenting under control so we cannle balance our budget and pay off debt. we need to commact pro-growth
reforms to create -- enact pro-growth reforms to create jobs today. and yielding myself 15 seconds to say, instead of growing government spending at 5.2%, we are proposing to go to 3.5% over the next 10 years. hardly draconian. with that, mr. speaker -- mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. some things do not improve with age, and we are here one day later in this republican budget -- and this republican budget is just as bad for the country today as it was yesterday. our republican colleagues are going to have to choose. either you claim your budget balances, or you fess up to the american people that you're keeping big parts to the affordable care act. because you can't do both. as we talked yesterday the house republican budget only reaches their claim of balance in 10 years if they take the revenues from the affordable care act and all the savings from the
affordable care act. and if they are going to claim that they are repealing that, as they voted 54-plus times to do on this floor, then their budget is automatically out of balance. now, all these budgets significantly reduce the deficit as a share of our economy in the out years. the fundamental question is what choices these budgets make in getting there. and the democratic budget that's been proposed, the president's budget, all those budgets say we need to have shared responsibility. we need to work together to accomplish that goal. the republican budget breaks the rules in the favor of the most powerful, most wealthy. if you are a millionaire under the republican budget, you get your top tax rate cut by a full 1/3. and everybody else in this budget gets walloped. if you're a senior on medicare, you will immediately see your prescription drugs cost rise if
you have high prescription drug costs. because they reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole. that's a choice they make in the republican budget for seniors today even as they choose to protect special interest tax breaks for the very powerful. they choose in this budget to say that students while they are still in college will be charged interest rates on their student loans, that saves them $40 billion, while they protect tax breaks for hedge fund owners. we don't think that's the right choice. and i'm now pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from washington state, member of the budget committee, and the ways and means committee, who is always focused on making the right choice for the american people, mr. mcdermott. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. without objection, so ordered. mr. chairman, this budget is not a real plan to address the urgent needs of
the american people. this budget is announcement of a campaign for the presidency of the united states. this bill is intended not to stir great debate in congress that ultimately delivers fiercely needed solutions for americans, instead this bill is written for the 2016 republican national convention. when you listen to the chairman talk about this budget, what you're really hearing is the inaugural address of the 45th president of the united states. a rousing address that asks not what you can do for your country, but proudly proclaims your country refuses to do a thing for you. millions of seniors tossed off medicare. the social safety net gutted to pay for millionaire tax cuts. infrastructure projects left to rot. denying millions of americans health security and medicaid slashed to the bone. that's just going to be the first 100 days.
remember as you vote a budget is a statement of your moral principles of what you think ought to go on in society. today's vote is the first vote for -- if that kind ever people get elected either in the senate or in the presidency in 2016. this is what you're going to see. they are putting it right out there for everybody in america to see. and that's why you must vote no. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: wow. that's a doozy, i have to say. that's a doozy. if that kind of people get elected. we want the government to pay off our debt. if those kind of people get collected, great. with that i'd like to yield four minutes to our distinguished majority whip, mr. mccarthy. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for four minutes. mr. mccarthy: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in support of the path to prosperity budget.
every day millions of americans are competing in a race with an economy that asks us to accept a new normal. and aeven inic growth, an obama -- an anemic growth, an obama can economy. i was recently at a high school speaking of the challenge that america had and a student asked me a question about it. i asked him, did he play a sport me? happened to be on the swim team. so i said, let me give you an analogy of america competing worldwide by a swim meet. picture america in a swim competition with every other country. many times at the early years, after the 1980's, we'd jump into the pool, we'd swim and we'd win. we'd hang those championship banners out. but in this new obama economy, things changed. stimulus spending. that meant we had to add a weight belt. about 20 pounds. then the tax increases came, we had to add more weight.
onslaught of regulation, pretty soon you're up to 100 pounds. we jump into that pool, we don't always win. and nobody says, take the weight belt off, they just say, you just don't swim like you used to. you just don't swim like you used to. think about it. since the recession, part time employment has increased at the expense to full time. 90 million americans are out of the work force altogether. 46 million live in poverty. you know, the c.b.o., congressional budget office, now says the new natural rate for unemployment is 6%. that means 11 million americans not working is somehow natural in america. that's what a weight will do for you -- weight belt will do for you, it will drown you. today's different. we're going to take that weight belt off. we have a budget that creates a tax code that is simpler and
fairer. one that lets you keep more money in your pocket and lets you invest differently. one that balances, takes away that debt of the weight belt. one that unshackles the energy, more jobs, cheaper fuel, more manufacturing jobs to be able to grow. we strengthen medicare and medicaid. so we take care of the current and the future. we plan to swim for years and compete for years in the future. i tell you today there are two different directions. you can stay with this anemic growth or you can jump into a pool with a future brighter than we've seen before and one that we know will hang a new banner of championships that america will rise once -- championships, that america will rise once again with the prose pert of a balanced budget -- prosperity of a balanced budget, one that will take us into a future of strength. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman.
the gentleman referenced several times the congressional budget office in the -- and the economy. i urge all my colleagues to read the congressional budget office report. it indicates that this house republican budget will actually slow down economic growth over the next couple years and slow down job growth over the next couple years. yes, we need a simpler, fairer tax code, but this house republican budget would provide a huge tax break to the very wealthy and increase the tax burden on the middle class. in fact, they cut the top rate from 39% to 25%. that's a full 1/3 tax cut. so millionaires get an average of $87,000 tax break. middle income taxpayers have to finance that cut for the folks at the top. that means ancreased tax burden of -- an increased tax burden of $2,000 for a middle class family. that is not good, fair tax reform. somebody who knows a lot about
the economy and doing it right, i'm pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from kentucky, a member of the budget committee, mr. yarmuth. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. yarmuth: i thank my colleague from maryland. mr. chairman, budgets are a reflection of our values. they're a statement of our priorities and they are about the choices we make to set the course for our future. with this budget, republicans are choosing the well off and well connected over middle class families. choosing, for instance, $45 billion in tax subsidies for oil companies whose own executives say they don't need it over veterans of the wars in afghanistan and iraq who are out of work. they choose a new average tax cut can of $200,000 per millionaire, per year, over 17,000 of our nation's most vulnerable children who would lose head start services. you know, mr. chairman, we just finished with march madness and i'm very proud of the university of kentucky wildcats. they had a great season. but isn't one of the cruel ironies of this debate that coach calipari of the
university of kentucky, who makes $5 million a year roughly, under the republican budget would get a tax cut, an additional tax cut of $700,000 a year while the students who support his program would see their pell grants slashed nationwide by a total of $145 billion over 10 years, isn't that something? a man who makes $5 million coaching basketball get cans a $700,000 tax break -- gets a $ 700,000 tax breaks while students get slashed. this is one of the choices that budgets are about, this is why the republican budget is totally out of step with american values and this is why we should reject the republican budget. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: boy, i wonder what tax bill they're talking about because it's not the one that's in the republican budget. the ways and means writes tax laws. we put out the outlines of tax reform that says there's $1 trillion a year of tax expenditures, of loopholes that can be closed.
if you give us a fairers, simpler tax code to lower taxes for everybody, all families and businesses, not whatever it is they're saying, pell grants, give myself 30 extra seconds. the we're saying is keep award where it is, the maximum award, and fully fund iter to the decade. that's slarbing -- fund it for the decade. that's slashing it? that's opposed to the president who is saying, let's grow it and then have some cliff and show no way or means of paying for it. the president in his budget is making a promise in pell grants that he shows no way of keeping. we think we should make a promise and keep it. that's why we fully fund the current awarded pell and oh, by the way we also are cognizant of the effect that many studies show us we are rising tuition, we are contributing to tuition inflation and we need to get to the bottom of that before we keep throwing more money at a
ystem that is raising tuition. with that i'll yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. -- or three minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. wenstrup. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for three minutes. mr. owens: thank you. thank you -- mr. wenstrup: thank you. thank you. mr. speaker, in this house we take the constitutional power of the purse very seriously. and we also take the future of young americans very seriously. and we take the notion of leaving something better for the next generation very seriously. again this year the majority has proposed a budget that responsibly balances our budget within 10 years. it secures, secures ourselves -- can scures our social safety net for the -- is a cures our social safety net -- is he cures our social safety net for -- secures our social safety net for our seniors. the budget begins to unburden future generations from the tyranny of debt can, being left to them by today's decision makers. the c.b.o. estimates we'll pay
$223 billion in interest payments this year. $223 billion in interest. at's enough to build 100 new bridges which is an aging bridge that spans the ohio river in cincinnati, a critical artery for our nation's highways, reaching from michigan to florida. going back to those interest payments. left uncheck canned, they'll balloon to $880 billion within 10 years. and that's about how much we're spending on social security every year right now. american prosperity cannot afford to throw our money away to interest payments. vice president joe biden is fond of saying, don't tell me what you value, show me your budget and i'll tell you what you value. it's a revealing quote, mr. speaker, especially since senate democrats yet again refuse to even consider a budget. i guess according to the vice president, senate democrats don't really value anything at all. it's disrespectful to the american people and to
hardworking americans that this budget debate isn't happening in the senate. as we have seen in recent years, the senate majority leader has decided not to introduce a budget. in fact, the only time the senate has introduced a budget recently was when the senators knew that they wouldn't be paid unless they did so. i know that ohio families and ohio businesses budget and plan for the future. they should be able to expect at least as much from their government and the house is meeting our obligation with this budget. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i just want to respond to a couple points the chairman made about tax reform. you know, republican ideology in washington has been that of trickledown economics. the idea is you provide the wealthiest people in the country with a tax break and somehow it trickles down and lifts everybody up. the problem is, that theory was
proven bankrupt in the early 2000's. under the bush administration we tried that, lowered tax rates at the top, the economy did not do any better. in fact, what we got were huge deficits. now in this republican budget, they're right back to the same old failed theory. and they call for reducing the top tax rate for millionaires from 39% down to 25%. and they claim that they're going to do this in a deficit-neutral way. but when you do the math, what that means is you are going to have to increase the tax burden on middle class taxpayers to finance tax breaks for folks at the top. and just to give our republican colleagues an opportunity to say that that's not what they intended, in the budget committee we offered an amendment calling the -- called protecting the american middle class from tax increases. saying, ok, at least tell the ways and means committee that one of your principles as you reduce tax breaks for millionaires is not to increase the tax burden on the middle class. and every republican on the
budget committee voted against that provision. and i'm pleased that we have the author of that amendment with us on the floor right now, that's mr. pascrell from the great state of new jersey. mr. pascrell. the chair: how much time? mr. van hollen: i yield him a minute and a half. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pascrell: this budget is fundamentally unserious. we've heard this now for four years in a ree. my friends on the other side of the aisle come down to the floor with their draconian budget, claiming they are reluctantly forced to make tough decisions because the specter of a debt crisis is around the corner. this, despite the fact that our deficit is falling at the fastest rate since the end of the second world war. we said this, we would do it,
and we did it. the supposedly looming debt crisis is going to be so incredibly bad for this country that we need to reluctantly gut programs that help low and moderate americans -- and you stand there and stand up there and talk to us about tax and spend democrats? you can't balance your budget without the affordable care act . isn't that a honey? you've done everything to dismantle it, over 50 votes to get rid of it, now you're using it in the revenues to balance your budget. ho, ho, ho. how very convenient of you. their prescription to prevent this impending disaster is their world view prescribes in the first place. tax cuts for the wealthy paid for on the backs of those not so wealthy. unfortunately it leads to only
one conclusion. the republican party does not care about our deficit. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. van hollen: i yield the entleman another 15 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pascrell: in the words of vice president, remember him, dick cheney, he proclaimed, deficits don't matter. so, you've had a call to religion, you've come back. your budget, the deficit is simply can an excuse to gut the social safety net. so i say, let's vote down this phony budget, let's get on with the real things, mr. speaker. thank you very much for your indulgence. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair would remind members to direct their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: in order to balance the time out, i think we'll let the gentleman from maryland go with another speaker so we can catch up. mr. van hollen: if i can inquire can how much time remains on both sides. the chair: the gentleman from maryland has 20 3/4 minutes
remaining. and the gentleman from wisconsin has 18 minutes remaining. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm now pleased to yield a minute and a half to a terrific member of the budget committee from the great state of new york, mr. jeffries. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. jeffries: i thank my distinguished friend for yielding. the g.o.p. budget is a product of the same type of extreme philosophy that gave rise to the reckless republican shutdown last year. . it is like a heat seeking missile aimed directly at the american people. it is a parade of horribles too numerous to catalog, but in the time i have allotted i will simply try to highlight the most egregious aspects. it will cut $125 billion from the snap program, making it
difficult for millions of food insecure americans to get access to the nutrition needed to lead a healthy life. it will cut $260 billion from higher education spending, depriving young americans of the opportunity to get a college education and robustly pursue the american dream. it will cut $732 billion from the medicaid program, making it hard for older americans to get access to this vital safety net program. it will turn medicare into a voucher program, that's a trojan horse, effectively ending medicare as we know it. it will balance the budget on the backs of working families, middle class folks, senior citizens, the poor, the sick, and the afflicted. the democratic plan is designed to create progress for the greatest number of americans possible. the republican plan is all about prosperity for the few and for that reason we should vote it
down. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, yesterday i was track cue la. . w i'm -- dracula and now i'm sending heat seeking missiles to the american people. with that i'd like to yield three minutes to the distinguished member of the budget committee, the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for three minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the chairman and the opportunity to stand and discuss the budget that we have before us. i find it so interesting that our constituents are watching this. and they are paying attention because they are concerned. and with good reason as one of my constituents said in a town hall meeting, i've got to tell you, i've got too much month left at the end of my money. and i'm tired of it. i'm tired of what this economy
has been doing to my opportunities. wage stagnation, increases in health care costs, the american people are over it. and they are ready to see the federal government start to live within its means. think about it like this, this is the week when millions of americans are sitting around the kitchen table looking at their income tax form, filling it out, trying to make certain that they do it right. let me ask you a question, is it fair, is it right for the men and women, the taxpayers, hardworking taxpayers in this country, is it right and fair to require them to send money to washington monthly that they don't have? money that causes them to
struggle to meet their bills and to live within their means. they are struggling every month. they have to send money to washington to a government that refuses to live within its means. this is what we are talking about and this is why a budget that actually makes $5.1 trillion worth of spending cuts is important. it's why it's important that we have a budget that says there is a pathway to economic growth. it is because it is what the american people want to see happen. now, i think our constituents find it very interesting that our colleagues across the aisle came to the budget committee room. what do they want to do? plus it up. spend more. $1.5 trillion in taxes. more, let's take more from the taxpayer. let's grow the size of the government. let's make it bigger, let's make
it more bloated. that is their solution to how to deal with what we have here in washington as a spending crisis. we don't have a revenue problem. we have a spending problem. we have a priority problem. and we see this play out regularly. mr. speaker, it is why it's important for us to have a budget that balances in 10 years. i have to tell yous -- you as a mom and grand mom, i look a lot at what is happening to our children and grandchildren. you-all can call it -- the chair: is recognized for an additional minutes. mrs. blackburn: you can call it draconian. you can call it all these names. but let me tell you what this is. this is a budget that is for our children. because it is for reduced regulation, reduced taxation,
reducing litigation. it is for innovation and job creation. that is what this budget is for. it is for fairness because if we don't get this under control, it will be my 5-year-old and 4-year-old grandchild that are facing draconian taxes, draconian rates, draconian cuts in order to be able to stand and live here in america. so as we look at this, yes, we put the focus on right sizing government, flexibility for the states, accountability to the american taxpayer, accountabilityle to the children who are going to inherit the consequences of the decisions we make today. i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from maryland.
mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. the gentlelady used the term draconian a couple times and the chairman keeps referring to comments that democrats have made as overblown. i would just remind the body it was just a few days ago that the senior republican, the chairman of the house appropriations committee, called the budget we are debating on the floor of the house draconian. that's what he called it, not a democrat. so i think members should keep that in mind as we proceed. i'm now very pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentlelady from florida, terrific member of the budget committee, ms. castor. the chair: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. castor: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, the people i know, the people i meet work very hard every day. they want an opportunity for a good job, want good schools, safe communities, and the promise that when they retire they can live their years in
dignity. they want a government that is fair and helps make progress towards the american dream. but this republican budget is not for the hard work -- hardworking people of america. this republican budget is crafted by the special interest for the special interest. republicans stack the deck against working families and small businesses. incomes of c.e.o.'s and the top 1% are soaring, but everyone else is working harder to get by. we need an economy that's firing on all cylinders for everybody. creating jobs that pay enough to keep up. yet the republican budget raises taxes on middle class families in order to cut taxes for people who earn over $1 million republicans ignore one of the most important ways to cut the debt and deficit, and that's have more americans working. if the middle class succeeds, then america succeeds. republicans refuse to find one special interest loophole in the tax code, and if you're incredibly rich, then you are
incredibly lucky because this budget is for you. you pay less. but if you're like the vast majority of americans hold on, because you are going to pay more. if you're a student who wants to attend college, republicans make that harder by cutting pell grants and student loans. if you have a job in construction at america's ports and transportation, this republican budget -- mr. van hollen: i yield another 30 seconds. miss carsor: if you believe -- ms. castor: if you believe america should remain the leader in research, sorry, the republican budget slashes riche at the national institutes of health, our universities, and research institutions. if you're an older american, the republicans budget asks you to pay much more for medicare, long-term care, nursing care. takes away that secure lifeline that's been in place since democratic congress passed medicare and medicaid that you'll be able to live your retirement years in dignity without the fear of poverty.
this republican budget is a cynical special interest driven vision of america. i recommend a strong no vote in opposition. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i'm now pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, distinguished member of the foreign affairs committee, mr. connolly. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. connolly: i thank the chair and i thank my colleague. this budget, i'm not going to call somebody track cue la -- track ue la -- dracula, i'm sure it's sincere, but it's about cutting taxes at the public's expense. it disinvests in america. we disinvest in r&d, in our future. the gentlelady from tennessee talked about children and the tax burden. what about their education? what about opportunity? what about the roads and bridges and tunnels and transit systems
they won't have because they have crumbled because we have disinvested? that's what this budget is all about. and it's -- it's absolutely on the wrong path and handing over our future to foreign competition. i urge defeat of this budget and i urge more sensible solutions to the future. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: when we call for revenue neutral tax reform, that means tax reform that keeps raising the same amount of revenue we raise today, do it through a better tax code so we are not picking winners and losers, so we can grow the economy and create jobs. with that i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. bucshon. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. bucshon: thank you, mr. speaker. when i tour businesses in the eighth district of indiana and meet with hoosier families, they tell me they are concerned about the enormous debt burdening our country. just like hoosier families and businesses that have to make hard decision when is money is
tight, washington must do the same in order to sustain our role as the leader in the free world. we are over $17 trillion in debt, it's clear washington, d.c. has a spending problem, and there are two very different pathways to address this issue. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would continue us on the failed status pathway of more spending, more taxes, more debt. their plan does not address the long-term drivers of our debt. it raises taxes on families who are already struggling to make ends meet, and has no intention of balancing ever. it does nothing to protect and strengthen the medicare safety net promised to our seniors. put simply, their plan does not implement serious reforms necessary to put us on a path to a sustainable future. mr. speaker, our budget has a different vision for america. our budget plan saves $5.1 trillion over the next decade. pays down our debt.
and encourages a growing and healthy economy. our plan expands opportunities for all americans by focusing on higher education and job training. we encourage a simpler, fairer tax code that saves americans thousands of hours spent every year on tax compliance. our plan protects the social safety net programs by encouraging upward mobility and providing states with the flexibility to meet the needs of their residents. one of the most important aspects of our budget plan protects social security and medicare for our nation's seniors. we preserve traditional medicare for those in or near retirement, while also offering options for medicare that strengthens this vital program so it's still around for future generations. for these reasons,r, i support the ryan budget plan which puts our country on a pathway back to prosperity. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from maryland.
mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. it does not strengthen medicare to reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole. which is exactly what this republican congressional budget does. so if you're a senior with high prescription drug costs, under this budget, it will cost you $1,200 more per year. the whole reason we closed the prescription drug doughnut hole was to prevent seniors in that position from having to undergo such economic hardship. but this republican budget reopens that doughnut hole now. now with respect to tax reform and picking winners and losers, the reality is that this republican budget does pick winners and losers. the big winners are people at the very top of the income scale because millionaires will see their top tax rate cut by a full 1/3. now, the results of that is that
middle income taxpayers are going to have to finance that in order to maintain what they call the deficit neutrality of it. that means that middle income taxpayers with kids are going to to an average of $2,000 more finance the tax cuts for millionaires. so millionaires are the winners, middle class taxpayers are the losers, as i said just a minute ago, we gave our republican colleagues an opportunity to say no, that's not their intention. but they voted against the amendment to protect american middle class taxpayers. i'm now pleased to yield to one of our terrific members of the budget committee, a gentleman from wisconsin, mr. pocan. the chair: how much time? mr. van hollen: a minute and a half. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. . mr. pocan: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the fourth year in a row the republicans have introduced their road map for the future.
who are the winners and losers? the chairman of the budget committee said this is a win-win budget. it's a win if you're in the top percent aisle, it's a win if you're in the second percent aisle. but the rest of us, the 98%, certainly aren't winning. we lose 1.1 million jobs in 2015 and three million jobs in 2016 in the republican budget. that's like firing every single person in the state of wisconsin. we lose by slashing investments in infrastructure and science, transportation and education and our seniors and the middle class taxpayers pay for it and we also lose on the fact that this has fuzzy math and the logic is terrible. the status actually balances in -- to say this actually balances in 10 years is saying cheese whiz is like real wisconsin cheese. they cut the affordable care act benefits but they keep the revenues and the savings and that's simply impossible. so i hope the american public realizes that the republicans' takeover, this is their road map, these are the cuts you're going to see and i urge a no
vote on the budget. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. chairman, i'm now pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from texas, a member of the budget committee and the ways and means committee, mr. doggett. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. doggett: this budget is too weak. it's too weak in all the wrong places and all the wrong ways. it's weak on opportunity, it's weak on competitiveness, it's weak on dealing with the tax avoidance and loopholes that would allow us to invest in america. the house republican budget actually grows the deficit, the opportunity deficit. a strong budget would help our students earn a degree without mortgaging their future in order to achieve their full god-given potential. and it will enable an educated work force that will allow us
to be competitive in the world economy. a strong budget would invest in life-saving medical research to grow our economy and to respond to the folks from san antonio who are here today to ask for more for alzheimer's research, not by taking it from aids or cancer research, but by investing more to get the cures , to save the lives and create the jobs that america ought to be about. and a strong budget would invest in the infrastructure, in the roads and rails and bridges and harbors like the chinese are doing to move goods and move people and a be competitive. a strong budget would ensure seniors' dignity in retirement, not what aarp says about this budget, that it would weaken the programs that provide the very foundation of health and retirement security for current and future generations. i urge the rejection of this weak republican budget in favor of needed investments in our
education, our infrastructure, our research, retirement security -- mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman another 30 seconds. the chair: are a the gentleman is recognized -- the gentleman is recognized. mr. doggett: those investments can be made simply by asking those who have been so privileged to enjoy so many tax loopholes to pay their fair share for the future of america. i believe it's an investment for a stronger america that affords more opportunity to every family. i ask for the rejection of this budget in favor of a strong budget that is strong for america, strong for our economy can and strong for opportunity and i yield back -- economy and strong for opportunity and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: apparently a strong budget needs we need to borrow more from the chinese to fund our government. with that, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield three minutes to the distinguished wisconsinite who does know the difference between real cheese and cheese whiz, mr. duffy can. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for three minutes. mr. duffy: thank you, mr.
speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. as i sit and listen to this debate today, no doubt the democrats' position is, let's just keep the status quo. don't change anything. let's continue on with our $17 trillion debt, let's continue to borrow and spend and spend and borrow and never change course. and we know that's their position by way of the amendments they offered in the budget committee, by the conversation here on the floor today and, mr. speaker, we know that by way of the senate budget when they put one out because it never balances and we know that because of the president's budget that he puts out, it never balances. it passes off this massive liability to the next generation. and their policies have a real impact on the country as a whole. listen we talk about seniors. the medicare trust fund is going broke in 12 years. it's going bankrupt. and my friends across the aisle, mr. speaker, they don't want to change it. they want to leave our seniors
today and our future seniors today in jeopardy with a trust fund that's gone broke. and it's hard to lead, it's hard to put ideas on the table and say, listen, my friends, let's come together, let's be responsible, let's make it sustainable, let's fix it. and the response is, don't do a darn thing -- don't do a darn thing. continue on the course to a bankrupt trust fund. that doesn't serve our seniors well, that doesn't serve our next generation of seniorswoman. speaking of medicare, there is only one party in this town that took over $700 billion out of medicare and used it for obamacare. they raided it and that's the democrat party, mr. speaker. that's unacceptable. and to come to the floor today and tell us and the american people that they're here to protect it just isn't true. listen, we're on the course to a fiscal calamity. and if that happens, who are the people who are hurt the
most among us? the people who are hurt the worst are the poorest. the ones who are most in need of government assistance. i think, listen, we should look to our churches and our communities for that help, but there is a role for government. and if you have a debt crisis, if you have a fiscal crisis, and you have people who have a hard time heating their homes and putting food on the table or kids that want to go to college or you want to build roads and bridges, there's not money there for those projects. if you want to be able to invest in your future, you have to make sure you have a budget that's sustainable. when you pay $230 billion in interest alone today, when the fed is printing money to buy down that interest rate, the president says in 10 years, interest on the debt is going to be $880 billion. you can build a lot of roads, bridges, you can feed a lot of people, you can send a lot of kids to school for almost $is trillion a year -- $1 trillion
a year. let's fix this problem, let's work together, let's balance our budget and start right here in the house in the budget committee. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i hope all of members of the house will check the facts with respect to the impact of the affordable care act on medicare. if you actually look at what's happened since the affordable care act was enacted, the per capita rate of increase in health care costs in this country has actually gone down. talk to seniors on medicare, anybody who's paying attention right now, i ask them, what has their part b premium done over the last couple of years? it's been steadier in fact this year, went down in real terms. and so the value that seniors have gotten under medicare has actually improved significantly in part due to the affordable care act. now, unlike the democratic budget, which used some of the savings from getting rid of
overpayments to some of the big insurance companies in medicare and using those savings to strengthen things like the prescription drug benefit, the republican budget keeps every dime, every dime of the medicare savings from the affordable care act, but they don't use any of it to strengthen medicare. in fact, they reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole. they start charging seniors now for preventive health services. and ultimately they actually end the medicare guarantee by turning medicare into a voucher program so that if you actually want to stay in traditional medicare, you'd be paying a whopping higher premium. that is not the way we should go can. and that's all in a budget that continues to provide tax breaks to the very wealthy in this country. those are not the right priorities for america. now i'd like to yield a minute and a half to somebody who has focused on the right priorities for america and recognizes that
small business is the engine of growth and opportunity and that is the ranking member of the small business committee, a member from new york, ms. velazquez. i yield a minute and a half. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. velazquez: thank you and thank the ranking member for yielding. and thank you for fighting and being a real fiscal leader for small businesses in this country. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this budget. far from being a path to prosperity, it is actually a path to the poor house. sadly, just as it falls short in so many other ways, the ryan budget clearly fails small businesses. under this budget, resources that help small companies launch, grow and hire will be cut by nearly $11 billion. a wide range of resources will be gutted, from contracts to
access to capital to international trade assistance to job training. this budget is not the right budget to help those businesses that are the backbone of the american, at a time when this economy is still struggling. studies have shown that many of these small business programs generate more than $3 in federal revenue for every $1 spent. what type of economic policy says that you cut programs that generate income for the treasury? we just held a press conference today with so many small business people who have benefited from these type of programs. they are businesses that open up into -- mr. van hollen: i yield the gentlelady another 30 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is
recognized. ms. velazquez: and today we have a lady who provides i.t. d.o.d. and to many federal agencies. her business grew from six people to 130 employees. this is the type of program that we need in place in order to grow our economy. republicans like to say that they are the champions of small businesses, they oppose the a.c.a., claiming it will harm small firms. they oppose the dodd-frank saying that it will hinder the ability of small businesses to get lending from traditional financial services. and yet they cut the very programs that provide -- access to capital for small businesses. when we look -- mr. van hollen: i yield the gentlelady another 30 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. velazquez: thank you. yet when we look at this project, we know that the rhetoric does not match the
reality. rather than paying lip service to small businesses, we must invest in the programs that help them drow -- can help them grow and create jobs. that's what we need. we must do better, vote no on this budget and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired -- the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. davis: mr. speaker, i want to thank chairman ryan for engaging the house in this very important process. we're talking about real alternatives and routes we can take for the future of this country and the future of our children can. as a father to a 17-year-old daughter and twin 13-year-old boys, riding the fiscal path of this country is the reason that i ran -- righting the fiscal path of this country is the reason i ran to serve in this institution and part of serving in this institution is creating a vision for america's financial future.
this budget balances, putting a budget on the floor of the house and putting forth a vision for america's fiscal future that balances is something that we need to do on a regular basis. it's sad that i had to fight for a provision to be put into this bill called no budget, no pay. as we know, the senate will not take this budget process up. and they shouldn't be paid. i fought for that proposal because members of congress can, if they're not willing to put in the work to help balance our country's checkbook and fulfill their constitutional duties, they should not be paid. for hardworking taxpayers, this budget allows you to keep more of your paycheck while again balancing our budget. compare that with the president's budget, which we will have a chance to vote on this week. i'd urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to vote yes on president's budget if you think it is the future for america. but that budget raises taxes by
more than $1 trillion and never balances. we have got a clear choice here, mr. speaker. for our seniors, this budget ends obamacare's raid on medicare and puts seniors back in charge of their health care decisions. this budget also preserves medicare for our current seniors and ensures that had this vital program is available -- that this vital program is available for all future generations. for our students this budget guarantees pell grants that are still there for those who greem of going to college but need a little help. right now the program is estimated to become insolvent by 2016 and every year we don't have a plan we risk the future of millions of students and contribute to the rising cost of tuition. and as someone who represents nine universities and colleges and eight community college districts, no plan is unacceptable. for our veterans, it ensures veterans still receive their benefits regardless of what happens in washington. additionally, this budget would
dedicate another $400 million to veterans programs. i did not come to washington to sit idly by and remain content with the current state of our nation. i came here to make washington work and provide the hardworking taxpayers of illinois' 13th congressional district with a better vision for america. this is a better vision for america, mr. speaker. and the attacks will come. don't let the attacks get in the way of the facts. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time of the the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. chairman, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the distinguished member of the budget committee and ways and means committee, mrs. black from tennessee. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for three minutes. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the distinguished chairman of the budget committee for yielding. our nation is $17.4 trillion in
debt and out-of-control spending here in washington has no end in sight. in fact, the nonpartisan congressional budget office estimates that on our current trajectory we will return to $1 trillion annual budget deficits by the year 2022. this situation is untenable, and it threatens the nation that we leave behind for our children and grandchildren. as i stand here and look at these young children up here or young adults, it looks to me, those are the ones that are going to have to pay for our lack of courage to do what we need to do to balance this budget and get our country and our spending under control. the vast majority of americans agree that the federal government should live within its means and that it should balance its budget the same way that american families do. that's why it's so disappointing that president obama's f.y. 2015
budget proposal would increase federal spending and never balance. yes, never balance, despite calling for an additional $1.8 trillion in taxes from hardworking americans. in fact, the president's budget proposal would add an additional $8.3 trillion to the national debt. the american people and these children deserve better than this. that's why i'm proud that my house republican budget colleagues and i have again acted where president obama and the congressional democrats failed to lead. the path to prosperity is our vision to control washington spending and to help get our economy moving again so americans can get back to work. this responsible budget proposal $5.1 ut spending by trillion, balance the budget in 10 years, and put us on a path to pay off our debt.
we accomplish all of this without raising taxes on the hardworking american people. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to join me in passing this budget proposal. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm now pleased to yield three minutes to my fellow marylander, the distinguished democratic whip, mr. hoyer, who is focused on these important issues successfully for a long time. the chair: the minority whip is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: i focused on them, how successfully is an item of debate. with myself. i thank the ranking member for yielding. this republican budget as i have said before is an exercise in how not to achieve fiscal sustainable -- sustainability.
bob dole-is imson -- bowles-simpson is a combination of balance and strategic investments in long-term economic growth. the bowles-simpson report says, and i quote, we must invest in education, infrastructure, and high value research and development to help our economy grow, keep us globally competitive, and make it easier for business to create jobs. the chairman of the budget committee voted against bowles-simpson. this budget disinvests in those priorities, which will help us create jobs and grow our middle class. it undercuts our ability to invest in economic competitiveness and the growth we need to secure the goal of a sustainable fiscal future. at the same time the republican budget does not follow the bipartisan commission's framework for achieving deficit
savings, a balanced approach that combines new revenue with spending reductions. there are no new revenues in this budget, and it's spending cuts are severe and irresponsible, cutting even deeper than the painful sequester. as i said yesterday, g.o.p. appropriations committee chairman hal rogers called the sequester levels unrealistic and ill-conceived. to which the chairman then rose and said, he said that last year. he made have said it last year, but you -- but the proposal you make are unchanged from last year, essentially. and this year he said your cuts were draconian. just a few days ago. the chair: the gentleman is dr hing remarks -- addressing remarks to the third person. mr. hoyer: i regret the chairman -- taking my remarks personally. of course they were meant simply
from a policy perspective on how bad the policy itself is, not the chairman himself who is a wonderful individual. in closing, let me say i urge everyone of my colleagues who is troubled about our deficits and debt who is deeply concerned about creating jobs and growing our economy to do the right thing. oppose this budget. now, the chairman of the appropriations committee, who has called the numbers in this budget draconian, apparently intends to vote for it. mr. speaker, i don't understand that. if i thought as i do that these numbers were draconian, the only alternative i would have is to vote no. i lament the fact that we are not addressing in a bipartisan comprehensive way putting america on a fiscally sustainable path. that would be the best economic
stimulus that we could do for america. what a shame, what a shame that again we have wasted that opportunity. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. who seeks time? the gentleman from -- mr. ryan: we have the right to close and have no more speakers. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for four minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. let me just pick up where mr. hoyer left off and ask the question, why would the republican chairman of the appropriations committee call this republican budget draconian? after all the chairman of the budget committee has told us today that don't worry, actually we are going to continue to grow the government just a little more slowly. but what that ignores is the fact that the portion of the budget that the chairman of the appropriations committee has
jurisdiction over is that portion of the budget that we have used historically in this country to make investments that help our economy grow. investments in our kids' education. from early education to k through 12. it college education. that's the part of the budget that we have used to invest in research and development, discoveries that place the like nasa that have had huge spinoff benefits for the rest of the country. and the economy. investments that actually help lead to the internet, that have been hugely beneficial to our economy. and that portion of the budget, that doesn't grow but a little less slowly, that cut that portion of the budget. in fact, as a share of our onomy it is cut by 40% below the lowest level since the 1950's, since we have been keeping track. and so that's why we are saying that our global economic
competitors, they are going to be cheering this republican udget. we'd like to see it in america agenda. this is accept america agenda. this actually provides tax cuts for u.s. corporations that move jobs overseas and yet cuts investments in jobs and economic development right here at home. that's why it's so misguided. that's why the republican chairman of the appropriations committee says it's draconian. now, what's worse is that it makes those cuts in our kids' education. it makes those cuts in basic r&d. makes the cut in the senior prescription drug benefit. it takes those while protecting these tax breaks for the most powerful and the very wealthy. the chairman referred a number of times to tax expenditures. he mentioned the other day that on an annual basis tax expenditures are over $1
trillion. in fact, more per year than social security, medicare, medicaid. some of those tax expenditures have worthy policy goals, but a lot are there because very powerful special interests have gotten an exception to -- exemption for themselves. what we said we should get rid of some of those tax breaks for the purpose of helping to reduce our deficit so we don't have to hit our kids' education so hard. so we don't have to disinvest from basic r&d. so we don't have to make the kind of cuts that the republican chairman of the compropingses --appropriations committee calls draconian. no, republicans don't want to do that. they say every time you close a tax loophole, you got to use it to reduce the tax rate for wealthier americans. we don't say if you identify a spending program that no longer makes sense you have to go spend it somewhere else. but when it comes to special
interest tax expenditures, that's exactly the republican position. you can only use it to bring down tax rates for multimillionaires. and as a result, while the winners in this republican budget are those folks at the very top, they sock it to everybody else. they do sock it to seniors on medicare. they sock it to our kids' education. and they sock it to the fundamental economic power of this country when they disinvest in the things that have helped make us a global power. and that is the wrong decision for america. so i urge my colleagues to vote no on this washington republican budget. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i yield myself the remainder of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. ryan: let me try to translate for the viewer what's happening here. every time you hear the word from that means take
hardworking taxpayers and spend in washington. and then when that's not enough, invest means, borrow nearly half of which from other countries for the next generation and spend in washington. just so you know, when they keep saying invest, invest, you're not investing enough, it means tax, borrow, and spend here in washington as if we know better how people should spend their money. the same analysis we hear about job loss and this isn't going to work and cost all these jobs is the same analysis that said the stimulus was going to be a boon. it's the same analysis they said if we just borrow and spend $780 billion in washington on shovel worthy jobs, unemployment will never reach 10%, we'll create millions of new jobs. it didn't work. it all comes down to this.
rather than prioritize our spending, rather than holding the federal government accountable and more transparent to make sure that are taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely and prudently. rather than balancing the budget and paying off the debt so the next generation is a debt free inheritance, rather than taking on the bloated tax code that is mired with special interest give aways and tax breaks and loopholes, rather than opening up this incredible store of oil and gas that can give us a huge renaissance of more jobs and lower gas an home heating prices and a better foreign policy, rather than he preserving our military and giving our troops what they need, rather than growing our economy and creating what is estimated by the c.b.o. to give each person an average of $1,100 more in take-home pay
because of that economic growth, rather than doing any of that just do more of the same. stick with the status quo. that's what this rhetoric is. it's a strawman argument. it's an argument that says let's affix certain views to our opponents so we can defeat these awful views we say they have and win the debate by default so we can stick with the status quo and keep doing more of the same. mr. chairman, here's where we're headed. this debt, this red line is the status quo. this is where america is going. it's not a republican or democrat thing. it's a math thing. and what we're saying with this budget is the status quo isn't working. we can't comore of the same because we're head -- we can't do more of the same because we're headed in the wrong direction. everybody in this country knows this. this is our plan. it's actually a plan, pay off a
their documentary answering the question, what's the most important issue the u.s. congress should consider in 014? these juniors from pioneer high school in an arbor, michigan, believe the environment is the most important issue. >> across the globe the environment is rapidly changing. from the arctic tundraings to the sahara desert no place has been left unharmed. the earth is getting warmer transforming life everywhere. in the ocean, in the sky, in the mountains. the world as we know it is in danger. but what people often fail to realize is that global warming doesn't just impact bears in habitat. it hits much closer to home.
hometown ann arbor, michigan. here global warming has affected our community in many ways from the food we eat to the safety of our city. but the truth is we humans are the cause. >> humans are causing global warming primarily through the burning of fox fuels. when we drive our cars and our trucks, when we heat our homes, when we run our industries to burning petroleum and other fossil fuels that is the mageclr tributor to climate change. >> despite overwhelming evidence, there are still some people who refuse to believe in the science of global warming. >> global warming has been politicized i think there are a number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling in. >> however, 97% of all scientists agree that global warming exists and that it is
man-made. >> climate change is no longer theatrical issue. >> these extreme temperatures are devastating across the nation. 70% of the country's tart cherry cropped is produced in michigan. in 2012, 97% of that crop was destroyed by drought and erratic climate both products of global warming. for the first time ever, our local business was forced to import cherries. >> we're seeing the impact in droughts, in floods, on more wild fires where the planet overall is hotter we see more of these extreme weather events. >> last summer on june 27, the severe weather effects of hit an arbor flooding streets and buildings across our downtown and threatening the safety of our
city. after the storm residents were hit an arbor in the flooding streets and much of our community's infrastructure were danled. steeries of the storms which have happened across our country, hurricane sandy which shut down the largest metropolitan area in the country, led to loss of life, billions of dollars in economic damage. increasingly we're seeing events like that. and what scientists tell us is without any doubt increasingly that's the trajectory we're on. >> as land is destroyed, as crops are destroyed, as buildings are damaged in weather, as coastline's erode that is huge steeries of storms huge economic impact. >> in the past three years alone, weather disasters have cost our nation over $200 billion. but global warming isn't just hurting our economy. t's also triggering health problems throughout the world killing 5 million people every year. and this is just the beginning. if we continue on throughout th killing 5 million people every
year. and this is just the beginning. if we continue on our current trend these effects of climate change will only get worse. our nation has implemented some measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. but looking at today's environment it isn't enough. >> although they're directionly right they're not nearly enough to get us to the level it is scientists are saying we need to get in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change. >> here, at our nation's capital, congress has the ability to help the environment immensely. that is if both the house and senate can work together an focus their attention on possible solutions to combating climate change. >> the environments in our country begin very much as a bipartisan issue. it was something that everyone could agree on. and over the last several years it has become a deeply partisan issue. > in our congress today, the
ideology gap between republicans and democrats is the greatest it has ever been. 2013 was the least productive year of congress in histrix we need to put our differences aside and achieve a solution to climate change before it's too late. >> certainly as a nation we need to go further. there are a range of thing that is could get us there. some people say it should be caps on the carbon emitt. other people say it should be economic ideology gap between like taxes. nd measures other people say there should be regulations that limit the amount of carbon that can be emitt. any of those policy approaches could work. certainly as a nation we need to work together to find a solution. >> there are things that congress can do. they haven't chosen to do them. this is an issue that is won that at bottom is a moral issue. the kind of world that we leave to future generations. the president has recognized that, emphasized that, in his climate change speech in june
at georgetown university. this is about the world that he is leaving for his children and the world that is being left for all our children. >> the question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it's too late. as a president, as a father, and as an american, i'm here to say we need to act. >> our environment is getting worse. and unless we act future generations will be forced to face the consequences of our intelligence. ngress, we need your help to make the earth a better place for all. >> something that we don't need to continue to debate. meeting.need a liken bring along the rest
>> number one, mr. speaker,. >> prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this morning i had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this house, i shall have further such meetings later today. >> turn to the prime mr. promised by the end of this parliament to reduce net annual migration to uk tens of thousands. will that policy be met? yes or no? >> we've made good steps forward on migration outside the eu where it is down by a third. that is a success and we've seen net migration overall come down by around a fifth. we haven' have seen is what we w under labour which is 2.2 million people come in debt over 10 years. that was unacceptable. we are getting the situation under control. >> speaking recently with a constituent of mine who has been diagnosed with dementia, she's
frightened about what the future might hold for her. will be prime minister give his personal assurances that a new dimension framework will be put in place as soon as possible to help my constituent and of those, other people as well? >> i can certainly get my honorable friend that assurance and i can add in terms of our dementia challenge which is about doubling the research going into dementia and treating it like a disease as cancer or heart disease, that will continue. the work we're doing to make sure that local to reduce our do more dementia friendly, that must continue and also improving the care that elderly people get in care homes, nursing homes and hospitals, that final piece of work must continue as well. we will push for this issue globally as well. >> ed miliband. [shouting]
>> mr. speaker, the events of last week of course deep concern and angst the public or what lessons has the prime minister learned from his handling of the situation? >> first of all i agree with them, there is still very deep concern, public concern that is very raw about the expensive scandal that rocked this parliament in the last parliament and the biggest lesson i learned, that, that anger is still very raw and it needs to be acted on. i hope the one lesson that won't be learned that the right thing to do is see that someone has to answer allegations is to just instantly remove them rather than give them a chance to clear the name and get on with their job. >> ed miliband. >> i was asking but his handling of the situation and lessons he learned and he had no answer. now, he wrote in his letter for the cultural secretary today and i quote, i think it is important to be clear that the committee on standard cleared the unfounded allegations made
against you. so can you explain what in his view the cultural secretary did wrong? >> the cultural secretary set out the reason for her rates is nation in her letter, but he does make an important point which is the culture secretary was accused of a very serious offense, which was by a member of parliament she was accused of housing her parents at the public expense. she was cleared of that allegation and i thought it was right, other people will be able to take a view, i'm telling about my view, i thought it was right in those circumstances to allow her to make her apology and continue with her job. that is the way i think is the right way to handle it. of the people can take their own view. i think if people clear themselves of a serious offense can you let them get on with the job, you let them try to do the job. that is actually the right thing to do. >> ed miliband. >> i've got to say who -- at stake him, mr. speaker, it is unclear for the country why the culture secretary is not still in her job if he thinks she did
nothing wrong. let me explain, let me explain -- >> order, order. this section will be conducted in an orderly way however long it takes. i happen to know there are children here today observing our proceedings who would like to thank the house would show a good example. let's see if we can. ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, what she did wrong was she refused to cooperate with inquiry. she breached the code of conduct for mps and she gave an inadequate apology to the south. he said six days ago she hasn't done the right thing and we should leave it at that. does he now recognize this was a terrible error of judgment? >> as i said i think it was right to allow the chance to get on with the job but there is one weakness in the right honorable gentleman's argument. if he thinks this was the case, why didn't he call on her to resign?
he seems to be, in my view, the first leader of the opposition, probably in history, to come to this house and make the first suggestion that someone should resign after they have already resigned. >> mr. ed miliband. >> i've heard everything but it's my job to fire members of his cabinet. [shouting] this is about him. this is about him and the fact he still doesn't understand what she did wrong. the reason the public was so appalled was that if it'd happened in any other business, they would have been no question about been staying in their job. why was he the last person in the country to realize her position was untenable? >> it's very clear. she did do some things wrong and that's what she was asked to apologize, and she did apologize. and it wasn't right not to cooperate probably with the committee, and she apologized for that but i have to say it is
rather extraordinary to ride on will jump in now coming here having not said she should resign is saying she should have resigned. i think it shows all the time of someone being a political bandwagon. [shouting] >> he is jumping on this bandwagon after the whole circus has left town. but where i agree, where i agree with the right honorable gentleman is that there is still more that needs to be done to deal with the problems of expenses that we suffered in the last parliament. now, we've made some big steps for. i'm not sure everybody knows this, but any expense complaint from 2010 onwards is now dealt with by an independent body and not dealt with by mps. that is right. the committee of mps that does the work on the past cases now has members of the public sitting on it. it is right, but i accept, let us do more to reach of the public about the scandal expenses and how we're dealing
with the. i'm very happy to hold meetings with party leaders, with the authorities of this house. i think it is right we should do everything we can to show that this is a good and honest parliament with good and hard-working people in it. that is the assumption that i stand for and i make no apology for that. [shouting] >> ed miliband. >> the prime minister describes it as a bandwagon and the circus. let me -- let me actually -- [shouting] this is about the members of this country absolutely appalled by the conduct of his government over the last week. that is what it is about. it is about members of the public who cannot understand why he did not act. he said in his ministry of tone, the british people expect a higher standard of conduct, we must not let them down. does he not realize that his failure, even now his failed to recognize what went wrong, has undermined trust? not only in his government but
in politics? >> what we see is absolute transcript o are taking a today determined to put politics in every single way that he could. absolutely clear. [shouting] since 2010 -- >> prime ministers answer must and will be heard. the prime minister. >> i think members across this house would know since 2010 and since the last parliament a lot of changes have been made, independent members on the parliamentary committee, publication of all meetings, visits and gives for ministers, publication of all special adviser salaries, publication of government spending, but is there more to do? yes, there is more to do. and if he serious about doing it he will sit down with other party leaders with the authorities of this house and let us ask what can we do to put the on doubt that this is a good and honest parliament with hard-working people? if he wants to put politics and the ones -- carry-on.
if you're serious, get a serious. >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, i will have meetings with them anytime about how we reform the systems of the south. of course, i will, but he just doesn't get it. that is what he is showing today. he needs to learn profound lessons about how he runs this government. the culture secretary went not because of her bad conduct because of her bad press. he promised in opposition to be an apostle for standards and he spent the last week being an apologist for unacceptable behavior. spent i think what this shows is the right honorable gentleman think his leadership to fire someone at the first sign of trouble rather than actually giving someone a chance to get on with their job, that is absolute and not leadership. that is weakness. if that is his recommendation of leadership, i don't think the country will have any of it.
>> with the prime minister agree with me, with the prime minister agree with me people living -- >> order, order. shouldn't be a collective groan. [laughter] spent the honorable gentleman -- order. the house will hear the honorable gentleman. mr. tim barron. >> thank you, mr. speaker. with the prime minister agree with me people living in rural britain have as much right to decent only and safe health and hospital services as anybody else? and if he does, if he does, will he help intervene directly and help me personally to ensure the hospital trust will not downgrade, sell off all her clothes the general hospital? >> i do representing a row constituency i know how important it is people have access to good health services to idle not important it is -- i know how important it is, the key to success in so many of our
areas. he asked me to look into the specific case and i'm happy to do that. >> thank you, mr. speaker. in the light of this week's historic visit by the average person, building on the legacy on her majesty's historic visit to ireland in 2011, will be prime minister agree with me that irish relationships have ever been stronger and effort to build lasting reconciliation across these items we need to -- the full commitment of his government along with the irish government to ensure that the prospects, potential prospect are delivered and implement the? >> first of all can i strongly agree with the honorable gentleman that it is a landmark visit of the irish president to this country, coming three years after the queens extorted visit to the public of ireland. i agree with him and global irish relations are at an all time high and we are absolutely
committed to building on that relationship and all the time are thinking of new things that britain and ireland can do as good neighbors and good friends. in terms of the house talk i do think it would be good if we could make some progress on the issue did something parties in northern ireland started themselves and i would urge them to continue it. >> on the day when bbc radio -- [inaudible] i'm pleased to mind the prime minister the challenge in front of policies to address the damaging a long-standing reputation of women in science and engineering careers. [shouting] spend so what is his response to the thoughtful -- >> order, order. the honorable gentleman will be heard. sir peter. >> that's all they did. what is his response to the
report published last week? >> canopy tribute to my right honorable friend campaigning and working so hard on this issue but it is important for the future of our country also not just for gender equality but for our economic future to get more women into stem subjects and into engineering. i should support the national center for universe and businesses target of doubling the numbers of fema engine and grudges by 23 to forward with employers, professional bodies and academic institutions but i think what most powerful things is role models like the role model he mentioned in his question. >> did the prime minister or any of his staff ask the right audible member to resign her position, and if not, should he have? >> the right audible member, my friend is set out the reasons for her resignation in a letter
she sent out today and i think people should accept that. i've given the fullest possible answers i could about my attitude of working with colleagues and giving them the chance to get on with their jobs. that's the right approach. >> thank you, mr. speaker. thanks to this governments long-term economic pride -- [shouting] youth unemployment has been slashed by 42% in my constituency. does the prime minister think that the opening of a new university technical college and a new free college and sells very will enhance the ability of young people to compete in the global raise? >> my honorable friend is entirely right in every word, because what we do see is a decline in youth unemployment. the figures in salisbury and in the southwest are quite remarkable.
these long-term youth claimant count has come down by 37% over the last year. what we need to do to further drive down youth unemployment is make sure the training opportunities and education is there, and that's what the university technical colleges are so important youth unemployment is still too high when we strip of those that are in full-time education. it's 8.7%, much lower than france or italy or spain or the eu average but it still do it and we're committed to get it down. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my constituent is to los loose s home after raising concerns about overcharging by solicitor. this solicitor from hell found a loophole by which he could soothe my constituent for complaining to the solicitor's regulation authority described it as morally reprehensible who say they're powerless to act. will the prime minister look at this case and intervene to stop the solicitor's running
roughshod their regulators a? >> i'm happy to look into this case, as the honorable gentleman will no the regulators and the ombuds men which were improved over previous year, they are independent of government so it's not possible to into being directed but what i can do is arrange for a meeting between him and the minister for legal services to discuss what remedies are open to his constituent. if it would be helpful than absorbing put that in place. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister from pakistan is due to visit later this month. will be prime minister specifically discuss with him to reform the blasphemy laws in pakistan which often used to persecute and prosecute minority communities including the christian committee? will the prime minister urge -- [inaudible] including a british national? >> i can reassure my friend i will certainly raise the issue with prime minister sharif when he comes to the united kingdom. i think it is important in the run up to easter to remember how
many christians are still persecuted around the world, including the persecution of christians under things like the blasphemy laws. i will raise the. i look forward to meeting with the pakistani leadership. >> thank you, mr. speaker. is the prime minister to wear that for 3 million low income families, for every three pounds they came to the personal tax loan, they will lose two pounds straightaway for universal credit? isn't the prime minister giving with one hand by taking away with the other? >> i actually think the audible john is quite profound because the whole point about universal credit is that you will always keep a reasonable share of every extra pound earned. the difference between universal credit and the systems put in place by the last government is that you often face people with over 100% marginal tax rates effectively when they were in work but that is what universal credit will change and that's
what i thought the party opposite was in favor of universal credit. if they've changed their mind about that as they often do about other things perhaps they should tell us. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the number of apprenticeship starts to my constituent is now at a record high, next week i'm holding the second rally a package of their. with the prime minister agree with me that investing in apprenticeship and skills is a critical part of our long-term economic plan to get local people in the flat country the skills they need to get a good quality jobs and to secure their futures? >> i certainly join my honorable friend in what he says. we've seen 185,000 apprenticeships start in the west midlands under this government. we have now got. we have no go 1.6 million nationwide tour on target for 2 million during this parliament to i want to make sure we continue to grow apprenticeships and we continue to see an increase in the quality of apprenticeships.
and also better information for young people in school about the sudden the pathway they want to take whether they want to take an academic pathway to university or the want to look at apprenticeships. we will be doing more on this front. >> despite all of the progress achieved in northern ireland, a recent poll finds 67% of 65 and 24 think the future life -- 70% citing local politicians were not capable -- [inaudible] as the prime minister agree that this ought to act as a wakeup call to those who continued to indulge in politics discussion and fear to start showing real leadership to inspire young people and get them hopefully start for a better future in northern i'm? >> anyone who believes that change is impossible or politicians can't raise rights to a challenge in northern ireland i think would've been very struck, i was.
people have, a huge weight and we need to continue with that vital work, including the work to fight racism and sectarianism wherever it arises. above all what we need is politicians in northern ireland to build a shared future to take down those piece walls, to make sure the economy can grow and opportunities are there for everyone in northern ireland. >> thank you, mr. speaker. 35,000 runners in lester's london marathon raised -- raised 539 pounds for good course of the i will be running again this sunday -- [shouting] for the forget-me-not children's hospital. will be prime minister join me wishing all the runners, including the children's minister and the shadow chancellor? >> i, over the -- i saw an attractive picture of my
honorable friend in his shorts, and the shadow chancellor in a true spirit of black leggings. [laughter] and i know, i'm over a number of colleagues in this house, i to say i bow down to you in my bread become 26 is a very long way to go. i certainly couldn't manage it but i'm full of admiration and full of admiration for the money that you raised her excellent et causes and that be treated to all members on all sides of the house that are taking part. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my constituent sue martin has been waiting over nine months for personal independence -- she now has to borrow from or 84 year-old mother just to get by. why does the prime minister think this is acceptable? >> all delays in the sort of payment are not acceptable to read make sure benefits are paid on time to what we try to do is to introduce it gradually so we make sure the quality of decision-making is good. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last week i was privileged to
meet a holocaust survivor. is the prime minister aware of another appalling persecution occurring today that is the ethnic cleansing in afghanistan and pakistan? a gentle religious islam is tolerant people who educate their sons and their daughters. when the need with a member of the ap pg concerned with it, chaired by the audible member, to discuss the situation? >> we should absolutely clear that the afghanistan that we have been supporting and will continue to support must be a multiracial and multiethnic afghanistan. that includes pashtuns, uzbeks and the many nationalities that make up that country but it's vital for its future. i'm happy to look at the evidence that he has and perhaps arrange any appropriate meetin meetings. >> 2400 jobs have been destroyed, and last friday 650
in newport by one single firm that specializes in buying up firms, degrading the pay and conditions of the staff, and then abandoning them to unemployment. what protection is the government planning to give to those blameless people, hard workers who suffer from the scourge of this new vulture capitalism? >> i'm very happy to look at the individual case that he raises, but what i would say about the situation in terms of jobs in uk right now, if you look at the last week we've had 8000 jobs from birmingham city airport, we got 12,000 jobs and over thousand jobs in what we are seeing is businesses wanting to locate in britain, take people on in britain and grow in britain. it as an example of a practice of very happy to look at it. >> thank you, mr. speaker.
in 1967, the abortion a term limit was set in 28 weeks. in 1990, this was reduced to 24 weeks. giving it is now 2014, a quarter of a century onwards, and given recent breakthroughs in anti-natal and neonatal care, does the prime minister agree with me it is now time to reduce the abortion term limit to 22 weeks? >> i've always made my own personal views on this clear and there have been opportunities recently in parliament to vote on this issue but it is always open to members of parliament to bring forward legislation, to amend existing bills and for the house to debate it. that's happened relatively recently. it will continue on this a passenger on the other side to be an entirely free vote issue. >> thank you, mr. speaker. does the prime minister or any member of his cabinet after -- to re-sign? >> my right honorable friend
took her own decision and has communicated a decision in a letter. i really think for members opposite should respect that decision. >> nigel adams. >> a cloud hangs over the job prospects of 700 mine workers in my constituency. could the prime minister usher the house of the government is doing everything he can to ensure the future for their livelihoods of? >> i can get my honorable friend that assurance. i think it is important despite the difficulties uk coal faces that the government should do everything it can within the rules that are lay down to look at whether there's help and assistance that we can do. that's exactly what is happening. i'm being kept up-to-date with this on sometimes a daily basis and i can assure him it's getting the government's attention. >> in the spirit of a new
positive case for the union produced this week, can be prime minister perhaps give us his view as to which of the apocalypse -- [inaudible] >> my view it is entirely positive one about what this united kingdom has achieved together in the past and what we can achieve in the future. i think the ones that take a narrow inward looking rather selfish here about the future are sitting on the benches over there. >> the surgeon general of the armed forces has raised concern of the impact of longer nhs waiting times on soldiers based in wales. does the prime minister agree that nhs, including soldiers, or so but not good enough? the welsh government could be undermining the operations of the armed forces and are potentially in breach of the military covenant? >> i think my honorable friend
makes an important point. we see 8% cut to the budget in wales to the nhs. the last time a&e targets were met was 2009. the last time cancer treatment targets were met was 2008, over 30 people miss out on access to diagnostic services within eight weeks. there is a truly dreadful record when it comes to labour's nhs in wales. you see a huge contrast now with the nhs in england properly funded, well run, beating the key target and they shamble in wales. >> five years ago in one of the worst things since the good friday -- my constituent and his colleague, mark quincey, were shot and killed outside their barracks. their families still await
justice. will be prime minister look at this case and also -- [inaudible] in northern ireland? >> first of all can i take this opportunity to express my send it to the families. this is a despicable terrorist attack and i fully share the desire that perpetrators are brought to justice. just because we're trying to do with the legacies of the past does not mean that crimes that have been committed should not be properly prosecuted and those responsible convicted. i know my right honorable friend the sectors they were northern ireland met the parents to discuss their concerns. the trial system in northern ireland was abolished in 2007 and replaced by provision allowing non-jury trials only in specific sets of circumstances. these provisions lapse every two years and in consideration be given to whether they ought to be renewed for a further two years in 2015.
>> people would've been reassured this week that the imf of credit countries gross -- [shouting] however, what my right honorable friend agree that they would be more reassured to know that our long-term economic plan -- [shouting] is working in east like a sure by the announcement this week that they've also graded 30 new apprenticeships? >> i think my friend makes an important point. would look at what's been happening in britain this week we can see the imf is saying that the uk will grow faster than any g7 country to exit jobs, extra partnerships he talks about, the trade deficit is falling. employment is rising. britain is on its way back. >> thank you, mr. speaker. during the committee stage of the legal aid offenders